Suspicion need to be supported by evidence

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.108 OF 2012

GUNA MAHTO ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF JHARKHAND ...RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KAROL, J.

7. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case

revolving around circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must

prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the

circumstances relied upon must point out only towards one

VERDICTUM.IN

4

hypothesis, that is, the guilt of the accused alone and none else.

On various occasions, this Court has stated essential conditions

that must be fulfilled before conviction of an accused can take

place based on circumstantial evidence. In the landmark case of

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Mahrashtra, (1984) 4

SCC 116 it has been held as under: 

153. A close analysis of this decision would show that

the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case

against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt

is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the

circumstances concerned must or should and not may

be established. There is not only a grammatical but a

legal distinction between may be proved and must be

or should be proved as was held by this Court in Shivaji

Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC

793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the

observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri)

p. 1047]

Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must

be and not merely may be guilty before a court can

convict and the mental distance between may be and

must be is long and divides vague conjectures from sure

conclusions.

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with

the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,

they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis

except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature

and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except

the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not

to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion

consistent with the innocence of the accused and must

show that in all human probability the act must have

been done by the accused.

VERDICTUM.IN

5

8. In the instant case, as we have noted earlier, the Investigation

Officer was not examined. We find that there is no evidence,

ocular or documentary, relating to the factum of the accused

having caused the disappearance of evidence by giving

information to the police in order to prevent himself from being

prosecuted in relation to the murder of his own wife.

...

16.We may reiterate that, suspicion howsoever grave it may be,

remains only a doubtful pigment in the story canvassed by the

prosecution for establishing its case beyond any reasonable

doubt. [Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine

SC 765; Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of

Maharashtra, (2021) 1 SCC 596; Pappu v. State of Uttar

Pradesh, (2022) 10 SCC 321]. Save and except for the above,

there is no evidence: ocular, circumstantial or otherwise, which

could establish the guilt of the accused. There is no discovery of

any fact linking the accused to the crime sought to be proved,

much less, established by the prosecution beyond reasonable

doubt. 

17.It is our bounden duty to ensure that miscarriage of justice is

avoided at all costs and the benefit of doubt, if any, given to the

accused. [Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P.

(1952) 2 SCC 71].

VERDICTUM.IN

10

18.In normal course of proceedings, this Court does not interfere

with the concurrent finding of facts reached by both the courts

below. It is only in exceptional cases where we find the

concurrent findings to be absurd, leading to travesty of justice, it

is our duty to rectify miscarriage of justice. [Ramaphupala

Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1970) 3 SCC 474, Balak

Ram v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 219, Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai

V. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217]. 

19.Hence, in our considered view, the courts below have seriously

erred in passing the order of conviction based on incorrect and

incomplete appreciation of evidence, causing serious prejudice to

the accused, also resulting into travesty of justice.